Wednesday, 30 December 2009

I don't identify as "Transgendered" - but don't get too upset by it.Many Transsexual people do though.

And I know few Intersexed people who identify as Transgendered, and some get quite angry about being called that. They have a point, it can be galling when someone is born with a physical anomaly, and ignorant opinionated bigots criticise them for their "immoral lifestyle choice".

The thing is, we don't get a choice what others call us. We don't have that privilege.

And being under that umbrella does nothing to protect us from the rain of persecution. It just marks us out, and makes us likely to be hit by the lightning of violence.

To the great unwashed, Transvestite = Intersexed = Transsexual = Gay. They're not sure whether we're evil, insane, or both. But are sure we're God's Enemies, out to corrupt their children with foul perversions, and quite possibly possessed by devils.

It's not very far from this:

To this:

The pastor who conducted the blessing of Sarah Palin is Thomas Muthee:

After founding the Prayer Cave in 1989 in Kiambu, Kenya, Muthee reportedly says that he spoke with God and was called to the United States where he would be embraced by Palin and her church. While in Kenya, he says that he discovered that the community was inundated by witchcraft: “We prayed, we fasted, the Lord showed us a spirit of witchcraft resting over the place.”

He even identified one witch known as Mama Jane, who ran a competing “divination” center called the Emmanuel Clinic. He declared that she was responsible for a rash of car accidents and led a crusade against her — a movement that would trigger calls for her to be stoned to death.

I think part of the problem is that in the US, hyperbole and hysteria often dominate political discourse. Many people say "X ought to be shot" - but few actually go out and shoot. Almost none. Such a nuanced view is not always taken in the rest of the world.

When the US Dominionists, Gayhunters and Witchsniffers say that people like me should be exterminated, then I believe that they'd do it, if given the chance. I don't think they'll be given that chance though, no matter if they do force Superstition to be taught in schools instead of Science. Spectral Evidence hasn't been accepted in American courts since the 17th century. I think the odds of that making a comeback are as likely as the buggy-whip being mass-produced.

The same people in many African countries though don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk :

The nine-year-old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall.

His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and his father then tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church that had denounced him – Mount Zion Lighthouse.

A month later, he died.

Nwanaokwo Edet was one of an increasing number of children in Africa accused of witchcraft by pastors and then tortured or killed, often by family members. Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of "witch children" reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files.

Some of the churches involved are renegade local branches of international franchises. Their parishioners take literally the Biblical exhortation, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

"Renegade"? No. Just "Radical". Many of the founding US churches are now being visited by Nigerian, Kenyan, and Rwandan missionaries from their radical offspring, and those pastors are finding a sympathetic audience.

From their website : MOUNT ZION LIGHTHOUSE FULL GOSPEL CHURCH INC. is associated with: HOUSE OF PRAYER OF ALL NATIONS, USA.

House of Prayer of All Nations594 Pleasant Chapel Church RdSilas, AL 36919+1 251-843-5331

This Security Directive (SD) must be implemented immediately. The measures contained in this SD are in addition to all other SDs currently in effect for your operations.

INFORMATION: On December 25, 2009, a terrorist attack was attempted against a flight traveling to the United States. TSA has identified security measures to be implemented by airports, aircraft operators, and foreign air carriers to mitigate potential threats to flights.

APPLICABILITY: THIS SD APPLIES TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS THAT CARRY OUT A SECURITY PROGRAM REGULATED UNDER 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR)1544.101(a).

ACTIONS REQUIRED: If you conduct scheduled and/or public charter flight operations under a Full Program under 49 CFR 1544.101(a) departing from any foreign location to the United States (including its territories and possessions), you must immediately implement all measures in this SD for each such flight.

1. BOARDING GATE

1. The aircraft operator or authorized air carrier representative must ensure all passengers are screened at the boarding gate during the boarding process using the following procedures. These procedures are in addition to the screening of all passengers at the screening checkpoint.

1. Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to boarding, concentrating on upper legs and torso.2. Physically inspect 100 percent of all passenger accessible property at the boarding gate prior to boarding, with focus on syringes being transported along with powders and/or liquids.3. Ensure the liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions are strictly adhered to in accordance with SD 1544-06-02E.

2. During the boarding process, the air carrier may exempt passengers who are Heads of State or Heads of Government from the measures outlined in Section I.A. of this SD, including the following who are traveling with the Head of State or Head of Government:

1. Spouse and children, or2. One other individual (chosen by the Head of State or Head of Government)

3. For the purposes of Section I.B., the following definitions apply:

1. Head of State: An individual serving as the chief public representative of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth, or any other political state (for example, King, Queen, and President).

2. Head of Government: The chief officer of the executive branch of a government presiding over a cabinet (for example, Prime Minister, Premier, President, and Monarch).

2. IN FLIGHT

1. During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed:

1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.

AIRCRAFT OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The aircraft operator must immediately provide written confirmation to its assigned PSI indicating receipt of this SD.

AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI, indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).

APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: With respect to the provisions of this SD, as stated in 49 CFR 1544.305(d), the aircraft operator may submit in writing to its PSI proposed alternative measures and the basis for submitting the alternative measures for approval by the Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management. The aircraft operator must immediately notify its PSI whenever any procedure in this SD cannot be carried out by a government authority charged with performing security procedures.

FOR TSA ACTION ONLY: The TSA must issue this SD immediately to the corporate security element of all affected U.S. aircraft operators.

FOR STATE DEPARTMENT: Retransmittal to appropriate foreign posts is authorized. Post must refer to STATE 162917, 201826Z Sep 01, Subject: FAA Security Directives and Information Circulars: Definitions and Handling, for specific guidance and dissemination.

Gale RossidesActing Administrator

What is an annoyance on a 45 minute flight makes long-haul flights untenable.

If I ever fly to the US again from Australia, I'll do it via Vancouver, with no travel via Hawai'i. A 15-18 hour flight in complete information blackout conditions, with no communication allowed to the outside world is ridiculous, and conributes nothing to airline safety.

This is obviously a canned response, as none of the in-flight restrictions would have prevented, or even hindered, the mass murder attempt. Some would actually prevent the passenger action that made the incident less serious than it could have been though.

Note the expiry date - tomorrow. If they truly thought that these measures would contribute anything to airline safety, they wouldn't just be for a few days. Ot's all for show, to demonstrate that they're doing something. Whether it makes sense or not is immaterial.

Monday, 28 December 2009

And perhaps literal Deification of the President might be going a little too far to be called "objective journalism"...

Sometimes it can even seem as of the press might actually be, well, not completely objective on the issue. The same kind of praise once only lavished on Absolute Monarchs, Ceasars, Presidents-for-Life and Dear Leaders, where every act of the Great Man, no matter how ordinary, is seen as a mark of his Superiority over ordinary mortals.:

Wait a second.... you go to all of the trouble of blowing up random images of christmas tree decorations for goodness' sake... and shrilly screaming "The ornaments are no accident. They are, like Mao's, a cultural revolution..." and "Do you notice how there were no accidents or mistakes like an image of Ronald Reagan festooned to the tree? How about George Washington, or General George Patton or any of the really exceptional human beings who walked among us that were not of the red variety, but of the red, white and blue schema?"

Then when someone else points out (by doing the same silly thing, blowing up random images of the same Christmas Tree) that there is an image of Ronald Reagan, with as backdrop, the "red, white and blue schema" of Old Glory... you take them to task for stupidly "blowing up images"....

Ye Gods.

Have you nothing better to do? The President is without doubt one of the least competent holders of that office ever, a demagogic Chicago Machine politician so far out of his depth you'd need a bathyscape to find him. There's serious issues with a "reformed health care plan" laden with pork, with almost every positive facet chiselled away, and almost all of the bad things left in... there's a debt that's going up by yet more trillions every week, and an unemployment rate that's setting new records every month.... a Congress where corruption is so endemic that it no longer raises eyebrows....

And you're having conniptions about Christmas Tree Ornaments???

With an "opposition" (I use the word loosely) like this, no wonder the DNC is stealing everything not nailed down, and prising out the nails from everything that is.

This blog won a Bronze Webbie as 3rd best conservative blog in the world. I'm very much afraid that it might be. If so, God Help the USA, because the Fox is in the Henhouse, and the Guard Dogs are too busy hysterically barking at the Moon(bats).

From this side of the world, there seems to be far too much partisan hysteria. So much that it has degenerated into farce.

Saturday, 26 December 2009

As usual, your missive is so cram full of goodies (whatchimicalits and macguffins indeed!) that it's hard to know where to begin. I guess I'll start by saying that you didn't answer my question about the link between bad reaction to body's hormones and ideation about being in the wrong body. And I'm wondering if you didn't answer because the link doesn't exist.

There are 5 different areas we have to look at regarding "gendered behaviour" and biology. There's correlations of various strengths, so sometimes A implies B almost always, but B only implies A some of the time.

Some of the things we do know, or think we know based on the sometimes scanty evidence:Most people with male-appearing bodies are gynaphillic, most people with female-appearing bodies are androphillic.Most people who "play with dolls" when young have female-appearing bodies. Most who "play with trucks" appear male.Most people with an "Innie" body map have female-appearing bodies, most with an "outie" body map appear maleetc etc - the standard binary model, in other words.

Now for some of the exceptions:Most people who "play with dolls" who have male-appearing bodies are androphillic - but the converse is not true. Most with male-appearing bodies who are androphillic played with trucks.

All those we've ever measured who have female emotions/smells/instincts have an "innie" body map: but there are a very, very few who have an "innie" body map and a male-appearing body who otherwise fit the standard binary model. But we need more data here.Those men who want "manginas" don't appear to be fanatical about it, are few in number, and may just have a sexual fetish. We don't know, and until recently, I wasn't even aware they existed.

Most people who have male bodies who are androphillic have an "outie" body map. Gay men outnumber straight trans women by a large margin.

It appears that those with masculine endocrinology but feminine cellular receptors do not always have an "innie" body map"; that they may not have "played with dolls". That they may not be androphillic; but that they always have feminine instincts, smell, etc.

The absolutely classic "True Transsexual" (as the HBS crowd calls them), the "Primary Transsexual" or "Type VI on the Benjamin Scale" woman with "complete psycho-sexual inversion" (to use the phrase from the 1960's) has the following characteristics: androphillic, played with dolls, "innie" body map, female cell receptors, female instincts. Such girls can't successfully keep up the "boy act". They transition or die before age 30, often before age 20.

The "secondary transsexual", "late transitioner" or "Type V on the Benjamin Scale" woman has the following characteristics: female cell receptors, female instincts, and "innie" body map. Those who are otherwise identical but do not have an "innie" body map, or not to the same extent, may be classified as Transsexual, or may not be, depending on who you listen to. I classify them as TS, but this is disputed. Type V TS women more often than not have one or more of the other characteristics of Type VI, but not all of them, or not to the same degree. The peak age of transition is 47, but individuals could be significantly earlier or later. A large number don't fit neatly into either arbitrary category too.

You can see that we have quite a menagerie already, even if these dimensions were binaries, rather than continuous. It's common to have 2 Type V TS women, one who is androphillic and played with trucks, another who is gynephillic and played with dolls. Just as common in fact as having 2 Standard Factory Model women, one who is straight but who was a "Tomboy" when young, the other a classic "lipstick lesbian".

From a neurological viewpoint, what's really interesting are those 46xx people with masculinising CAH - congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Only 1 in 10 identify as male, yet all "play with trucks" and most are at least Bi, if not gynephillic. Compare with the 46xy children who "play with dolls", 1 in 3 of whom identify as women, and the rest are merely Gay. This strongly suggests that "timing is everything" in the womb: that the hormones produced by CAH come too late (usually) to change gender identity, but in time to change some of the other neurology usually associated with the parts that determine gender identity. Different substructures of the brain are involved.

It would be better to compare 46xx children with CAH to 46xx children presenting with "Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" - in other words, non-CAH 46xx children who "play with trucks". Without that, we can't be sure that chromosomes don't play a role, and they may do, we don't know. Unfortunately.. (for the scientist, not for the children) while a "boy" playing with dolls is often seen as a disordered "sissy", so a large proportion become experimental animals, a "girl" playing with trucks is likely to be seen as a cute tomboy, so escapes the tender mercies of the experimenters. Only the more extreme examples, those with an expressed male gender identity, are likely to be studied.

Worse... I'm simplifying. I'm talking about the hypothalamus and lymbic nucleus, the "hind brain" as if it had no effect on the development of the far more plastic higher brain anatomy, as if that were gender-neutral. It's not though: the base of the brain lays out an "easy path" for the rest to follow into either a stereotypically masculine or feminine template. This "easy path" may be cast in concrete, a straightjacket: or it may be distinctly rubbery, and the higher brain functions may not follow the easiest path, as there's another only slightly harder.

Did I say that biology is messy? Fuzzy? Non-binary? Good.

Bottom line: The two, hormonal cross-gendering and body-map cross-gendering are different. One can have one without the other. You usually have both or neither though, and having the wrong body map almost always implies a hormonal problem - though not necessarily the reverse. The hormone doses required may end up being so large as to cause significant, overt somatic changes anyway. This is especially the case with FtoMs.

Those who could, at a pinch, live without surgery if they absolutely had to often get it anyway. Without it, most jurisdictions won't recognise their sex, and they may even face prosecution, up to and including capital punishment. I, for example, could have lived without it, just as I could live with quadraplegia. I would still have needed an orchidectomy and urethral re-plumbing, but the vagina was an "optional extra". I would rather have lost an eye than not had it - but not both eyes. I expected to die a virgin though.

For instance, you didn't have the hormone problem but seem to have had the same miseries. Can I have been right after all, and the doldrums are due to internalizing the sex-role stereotypes and needing to conform?

Oh, I had the hormone problems all right. When my endocrine system switched (for causes still not well understood) from a fair approximation of a male norm to a good approximation of a female norm in late April- early May 2005, the relief was immediate. My intelligence and ability to cope with difficulties expanded spectacularly. Good job, considering what was happening somatically...

Do you recall the things that were going through your mind during these periods? Do you know how close these thoughts were to those of transsexuals during similar depressive states?

Something not well understood given the menagerie of different neurologies is just how boringly stereotyped the feelings are. While there are often minor differences, trans women and trans men are almost cardboard cut-outs in their experiences. The "standard transsexual narrative" as shown in the book "True Selves" and elsewhere is tediously repetitive.

Here's some of the characteristics of the "standard narrative" for women.1. Always "wanted to be a girl" from an early age.2. Played with dolls and dressed up3. Wore women's clothes whenever they could.

I followed none of those -I didn't "want": to be a girl, boys did all the fun things. I just "was" a girl.I didn't play with dolls - apart from "action figures" - I played with cars and fighter jets - OK, Lady Penelope's pink Rolls Royce, and I wanted to be Destiny Angel flying an Angel Interceptor, but you get the idea. I didn't want a barbie doll set for Christmas, I wanted a Battlewagon that fired missiles and torpedos.

And I never wore girly clothes. They were for sissies, and I wanted to be a boy! I just didn't want my secret to be found out, so I always stayed away from looking feminine. I actually despised the damsel in distress, why couldn't she go out and rescue the prince once in a while? Yes, I was a Feminist even at age 6, even before I realised that I was female. I didn't realise that until I met other girls, and boys, and compared how I felt emotionally to how they did.

But as regards everything else, my narrative matches those of transitioned women perfectly. Regardless of whether they were "transsexual", or merely intersexed women undoing a surgeon's mutilation of them as infants.

Digression: I always felt sorry for the Dragon. Surely if it was intelligent, some farming arrangement could be come to? Maybe get it to join the defence force for mutual benefit? Get a Lady Dragon, and bring up the kids along with people, so we can all be friends? (Shades of Jane and the Dragon) And if merely bestial or evil, none of this posturing macho BS about single-combat: wait till it's asleep, and hit it with half-tonne boulders from massed trebuchets behind a hill. All that masculine bravado seemed puerile to me. True heroism though... that's really attractive, and incredibly sexy.

Then there's the question of what benefit sex-reassignment surgery offers beyond the psychological satisfaction of getting what you asked for. If the point is to relieve the negative responses to the body's hormones, you'd think removal of the testes would suffice in male to female cases, and the rest of the package would be unnecessary.

That's correct. In cases where the body map is not strongly for an "innie", hormones alone may be enough. Hormones plus an orchie is even better, you need less if there's no need to oppose a masculine endocrine production.

But where the body map dictates there should be an "innie"... forcing a woman to have partly male genitalia would be exactly as bad as castrating gays. Even if she doesn't intend having a sex life. If she does, and has an "innie" body map, then she's likely to suffer some trauma from this. Trust me on that one. How would you like it if you felt that the mating tentacle in your right armpit felt foreign, wrong, that you should have a penis between your legs instead, no matter what other people said?

Have you got a physiological explanation for this, or could it just be that the psychologists and researchers, once again, don't know what they're talking about.Are they actually looking for ways to solve the hormonal problem without surgery?

No, we don't (in general) *know* what we're talking about. We know only a few things beyond reasonable doubt. We know rather more on the substantial balance of probabilities. More still on the balance of probabilities. But far too much is theory backed by evidence, but we can't be sure.

Unfortunately, the competing "theories", often given far more weight for historical, ideological, or religious reasons, are conjectures with nary a scintilla of solid evidence to back them up.

After all, as you point out, the neuroanatormy theory has only been around for five years,

Um, no. It's been around as a conjecture for a long time. As an evidenced hypothesis since around 1960. See for example "A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior" M.Diamond in The Quarterly Review of Biology, Volume 40, No. 2, June 1965 . As a theory with solid evidence since the late 90's, and the "most probable cause" since the early 2000's. But it's only now becoming widely accepted as the consensus position. Even now, not only are there many health professionals who don't subscribe to it, there are very many non-specialists who have never even heard of it!

but the medics, for quite a while before that, have been willing to perform such surgeries, and ( I continue to thiink) that's because they supported, nay, encouraged, the idea that there's substance to somebody's report that "I've always felt like a man (or woman)," without ever asking, "What the devil does feeling like man (or woman) actually mean?"

Of course they did. Ask, I mean. Tell me, what does it feel like to be 90? For that matter, what did it feel like to be 75? Apart from the external evidence, documentation etc, all of which could be faked, how do you know that you were 75? How did it feel, compared to say, being 51?

Look around you at the men and women you know. Do they all, of the same gender, feel the same? Of course not. You say you're put off by the notion of real men or real women, as I am, then ask yourself, what does it mean to "feel like a woman"? I say one's inner identity is not determined by anatomy, and you say, in effect, that I can say that because my anatomy is congruent. Does that mean your inner identity is determined by anatomy? Bull! At a guess I'd say that our inner identities are pretty similar since we both begin with our feelings about things and try to develop them into concepts, and this has nothing at all to do with anatomy.

I used to feel the same. My logic went like this: I have the same emotions and feelings as my girlfiends. I am male. Therefore there is no difference between men and women. What I didn't do was look at how my feelings differed from that of most men I knew. I did that at an early age, and came to the conclusion that I was a girl not a boy. That was an impossible, terrible, position to be in, one of unending horror. I would have died if that was the case. This conclusion could not be allowed to exist. So I took whatever steps were needed for survival. I appeared rational, normal, sane. And I was, except in this one area. There I was stark staring bonkers. I had to be, or I'd die.

Men amd Women are different, they think differently. The degrees of difference vary widely though, there is considerable overlap. I think only transsexuals and other intersexed people grok this in fullness, both the often non-obvious but deep differences, and the hidden similarities sometimes disguised by social construction.

My Ali, who has nothing much in formal education, observed to me just the other day that his best friend Mohammed Ali was like me, warm and feelingful, but that his friend's wife Shahana was someone he could identify with, a person of action and superabundant vitality like Ali himself.

Ron - why not ask Shahana? Or any other woman? You've only compared yourself to other men, and haven't even realised that. Try getting invited as a witness to a local ladies sewing-circle, or the equivalent. It was only when I joined the WITChes, the Women In Technology and Communications, that I finally found myself at home, with kindred spirits (my girlfriends tend not to be technically savvy). There really is "secret women's business". We have to conspire, to protect ourselves against the patriarchy, most of whom are completely unaware of their male privilege.

And if you and your mate have decided not to have sex, or just don't feel like it, who am I to tell you what to do. But "the wrong sex for each other?" You know better than that. And didn't you say you were attracted to women when thought to be male?

I was attracted to her, not to women in general. We love each other very much... but there's just no chemistry. When I had a male endocrine system and mostly male anatomy, I could at least please, if not be pleased. She was attracted to my shape, and men did nothing for me. Women do nothing for her.

You're still the same person, aren't you?

No. Yes. It depends what you mean.. *Sigh*. I lost very little of the person I was. But that's only because I was a woman pretending to be a man, not the real deal. And I was nowhere near as good at it as I thought I was. Those who know me well have told me that the most remarkable thing is how little has actually changed. I still have the same vocabulary, mannerisms, body language. But now I no longer look like a rugby player, just a rather amazonesque middle-aged female academic. The other thing they remark on is just how stereotypically female it all seems now, they kick themselves that they didn't see it before. OK, I'm still geeky, tomboyish, but there's a huge difference between tomboy and boy.

What did I lose - well, I have arachnophobia now. Spiders used not to bother me. A few other areas where I feel more vulnerable. I avoid walking home in the dark, not just out of good sense because I no longer look like a hunter, but prey - it's because of instinctive fear. I can no longer keep my emotions inside, as I used to. But now I don't have to.

I still have some male behaviour patterns. Recently, when walking to my car in the dark, keeping to well-lighted paths, I heard some female screams, like someone being attacked. While taking out my mobile phone to dial 000 (the Oz equivalent of 911), I ran - but towards, not away from, taking out a pen and some keys from my handbag, to go for the throat and eyes. I no longer have the upper body strength I used to, so *have* to fight dirty - like a girl. Just because I was terrified doesn't mean I felt I could stand aside.

I had 47 years of trying not just to be a Man, but the kind of Man I would have wanted to marry. The Sir Galahad type, full of maternal instinct to protect. That's one thing I've decided not to discard, "masculine" though it may be. Even though my life is valuable to me now, in a way it wasn't before. I'm no longer seeking something worth dying for.

We make very, very good soldiers. One hypothesis is that that's why so many of us exist - as expendable scouts, brain-bugs and soldier-ants.

What I gained... an enormous amount. I've talked about male privilege, and that is a very real thing, especially in an economic sense. But there's female privilege too. The ability to pick and choose, to have guys who think with the secondary brains between their legs chase after you - and to be able to say no. The ability to manipulate the poor things, they're so transparent at times. But most of all, the sisterhood. The closeness that one finds amongst every group of women, that is only found amongst close-knit military units amongst men. The sisterhood of the harem, even if we're no longer property. The male bonding that happens in bull sessions at the pub is nothing compared to the bond women share, even if they've only just met.While a woman may never be completely accepted in male bonding sessions, if they do something macho like skoal a shot of spirits, to a great extent they're "just one of the boys", in a way that no male will know in the company of women. I used to be an honorary member of the sisterhood - I didn't vibe male - but there was always a distance, a feeling of defensiveness. No longer.

I'm far more me. I no longer have to keep my instincts in check. I can cry - testosterone largely removes that ability, it's something that FtoMs miss. Alan was always a pale, stunted part of Zoe, less than half her full potential, so much psychic energy expended in doing the "boy act" that could have been used elsewhere, to grow, and to nurture. It's only been 4 years, I still am exploring my potential.

There's a societal freedom too. If I see a child crying, I can comfort them, without being suspected of being a predator. OK, so I get talked over, and if I insist, get called a pushy bitch who needs to get laid. I expected to get that - my Girlfriends warned me about it - and gave me some tips on how to get around it, even when I was in the middle of transition. I can wear jeans, or a skirt, depending on how I feel. Earrings, eye makeup... and the fact that I care at all about my appearance is something new. I never did before. I no longer feel as if I'm walking around in a suit of armour., inhabiting a meat mind-support mechanism. My body is part of me now, not a thing apart.

I didn't expect any of the gifts I was given - certainly not to be attractive to men. I had no interest in them. I just wanted the body fixed. That's probably why I'm gushing a bit about it all. Ok, a lot, not a bit.

You do know that the two of us are writing a book here, don't you? Or maybe I just have logghorea.

All the best to you, Ali, Mohammed Ali, Shahana, and everyone else in your ohana.

Wednesday, 23 December 2009

First I'd like to get the "born that way" thing out of the way for the time being (one of my attachments more or less deals with that, so if you read it, we'll have more to talk about anon.) I'm not persuaded that the documentation you referred me to proves that even some people are born gay or straight -- even if I was sure that the methodology of the studies was all kosher and the sample adequate. And I think that, born that way or not, people who define themselves as gay or bisexual have made a moral choice not to deny or repress their homosexual impulses the way most people do.

You assume that "most people" have homosexual impulses. I'm not sure that most men do.

Now we have to look at validity of the trinary sexual orientation model - that people are either homo-, hetero- or bi-sexual, with sharp distinctions between the three.

To say that this is a can of worms understates the matter. Let's just say that the evidence is that some people really and truly are exclusively heterosexual, and have never had the slightest of "homosexual impulses". And that some people really and truly are exclusively homosexual, and have never had the slightest of "homosexual impulses". What all the arguments are about though is where the border lies, how big these groups are, and what exactly is a significant "heterosexual" or "homosexual impulse".

My view is that the trinary model is a better approximation than a binary one, (ie one excluding bisexuality). Better - but not perfect. I can't say whether the "exclusives", those with one set of "impulses" and not the other is 10% of the population, 50%, or whether for men it's 80% and women 30%. I can't say whether the 7-stage Kinsey scale is a great improvement over the trinary model either, as that deals with easy-to-measure experiences rather than "impulses" as such.

The matter is too politicised. "Exclusives" exist, but that's all I can say. Anything else is at best informed guesswork, at worst speculation. So I'll speculate, and say that to me, from the contradictory evidence before me, about 50% of men and 30% of women are exclusively hetero- or homo- sexual, and that for the rest, the "impulses" vary from sporadic, once-in-a-lifetime "bi-curious" to the truly polyamorous. But I could be wrong in these figures, though not the principles.

At last, to begin. And not where I thought I'd start but with your comment that transsexuaality is like intersex. Well, from what we've discussed, it is intersex, since one part of the anatomy (the neuroanatomy in the brain) may be typically male while another part (the body) may be typically female.

Exactly. Though not all of the brain may be affected, it only has to be certain parts. And a large number of transsexual people have sub-clinical or even clinical signs of intersex in the rest of the body too.

You seem to think, and I'm not at all clear why, that the brain part is what makes somebody a real man or woman and to insist, as I think you've conceded, that one must decide one is, or must choose to be, one or the other.

I dislike the terms : "real" man : "real" woman. They're not just almost meaning-free, they're demeaning. Here again, we're talking about a binary model, one that insists that "men are real men" and "women are real women", and anyone who identifies with neither is lying and perverted.

One of the areas I've done some advocacy on is for Intersexed people. Most of whom identify as men, or women, not both and not neither. But please notice I say "most". A significant proportion identify as androgenous, something of both; or neutrois, nothing of either; or not-men, ie not particularly female, but not male at all, or not-women, not particularly male, but not female at all. An adequate model - not perfect, but good enough for most purposes - is to say that there are the following sexes: Male, Female, Not-Male, Not-Female, Androgenous, and Neutrois.

Now those who are born with overt, visible Intersex conditions have an excellent case for their expressed view of their sex to be accepted. While some groups, notably the conservative branches of the Abrahamic Religions,and US legal codes at both state and federal level, insist on a strict binary model, even Judaism and Islam allow for 4 sexes. In Judaism, it's male, female, tumtum and androgenous (a Greek loan word). In Islam, it's male, female, khunsa and mattani. Tumtum/khunsa are Intersexed, but considered "real men" or "real women" depending on who they most resemble. But even then, thare's arguments about what does "most resemble" mean. The more humane interpretation, ones common in mainstream Islam and medieval Catholicism, is "what the individual tells us they are".

Androgenous/mattani means "effeminate men", a group anathema to Patriarchal religion. Butch women are acceptable. Yes, this is Crazy. Yes, this in oppressive, and inhuman, and wrong. But these are conservative Patriarchal religions, and logic and justice and decency and treatment of women as equals are not things they're famous for, are they?

She's a biologist, but her presentations contain much of the data I've seen given to both Psychology and Medical students at the ANU. I unreservedly recommend them as an introduction to the subject, for the well-educated and intelligent layperson such as yourself.

Bottom Line:I fight equally strongly for the right of those intersexed people who don't identify as either male or female to so identify, as I do for those who identify as male, or as female. And fight I have to, against the arrogance and ignorance of those not Intersexed, who insist that "men are men and women are women" on the conservative side, or "gender is all a social construct, and we should do nothing to affirm the myth of the gender binary" on the other. Opposite positions, but both telling Intersex people what they should do from their position of privilege, and that their ideology trumps others experience.

Where I get into trouble is that I'm coming around to the idea that being Intersexed or not is irrelevant. That I can't logically distinguish between those apparently somatically usual, and those who are not when it comes to this issue. I conjecture that the neurology of some of the "transgendered" must be atypical, but no-one's ever done any studies. This has made me as popular as a pork chop in a synagogue amongst some groups who otherwise would applaud me. "Traitor" is one of the kinder labels that have been tossed my way, for giving aid and comfort to the "Tee Gee", the transgendered men (the majority of whom have a harmless sexual fetish) who outnumber the transsexual women who they resemble.

To borrow a phrase, have your views evolved over time?In 1993 I voted for a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodation, housing, and employment. That was 16 years ago.

Yes, gay-rights activists regarded you as a pretty cool guy at the time.We overbaked that statute, for a couple of reasons. If I had to do it over again I would have changed some things.

Overbaked?That statute is not worded the way it should be. I said I regretted the vote later because it included things like cross-dressing, and a variety of other people involved in behaviors that weren't based on sexual orientation, just a preference for the way they dressed and behaved. So it was overly broad. So if you are a third-grade teacher and you are a man and you show up on Monday as Mr. Johnson and you show up on Tuesday as Mrs. Johnson, that is a little confusing to the kids. So I don't like that.

Has the law been changed?No. It should be, though.

So you want to protect kids against cross-dressing elementary-school teachers. Do you have any in Minnesota?Probably. We've had a few instances, not exactly like that, but similar.

"Similar" meaning transsexual women who just want to continue teaching. Gay-friendly he certainly is, trans-friendly, not so much. And I'm supporting the "cross dressers" who both the Governor and many transsexual women find extremely icky. And whose existence causes trans women to quite literally starve to death, or freeze to death, as the result.

Jennifer Gale, one of Austin’s most colorful characters and perennial political candidates, has been found dead in Central Austin, authorities said today.

Gale, who was homeless and was a candidate in the upcoming mayoral race, was found sleeping outside the First English Lutheran Church at 3001 Whitis Avenue by a worker about 6 a.m. today, Fire Department spokeswoman Michelle DeCrane said.

The worker returned about an hour later, thought Gale might be in distress, and called 911, DeCrane said.

Austin firefighters at a nearby station responded and began performing CPR, DeCrane said.

Gale routinely attended Austin City Council meetings, county commissioners court and school board meeting, often presenting her political arguments in song. On Tuesday, she sang “Silent Night” at a city health and human services subcommittee meeting.

Temperatures that night, and for the previous few nights, had been near or below freezing. But she was ineligible for accomodation in a homeless shelter because she was trans. The autopsy showed she died of heart failure caused by a combination of high blood pressure and hypothermia. She died one year ago Thursday.

Now I better explain a bit about some of the jargon I use - "jargon" meaning "technical terms of some exactitude used in a specialised area", rather than "neologisms designed to confuse the unitiated".

Sex is a bimodal continuous multidimensional concept, rather than a binary.

What do I mean by that? Suppose we have a binary model of objects in a sack. All objects are either bopamagilvies or macguffins. Bopamagilvies are large, cubical, rigid and blue. Macguffins are small, spherical, squishy and red.

When we look at the objects, we find that there are two distinct groups: bopamagilvies and macguffins. But few of the bopamagilvies are completely blue, some are a bit purplish. Some have rounded edges. A few aren't very rigid. And some are more medium-sized than large. As for the macguffins, they're all over the shop when it comes to shape. Spheroids, octahedrons, dodecahedrons with rounded edges or sharp ones, but usually rather squishy, and ranging from vermillion to scarlet, and on to pink. Some are tiny, but some are almost largish.

And some of the objects resist easy classification. There are cubes that are soft, a definite purple, and rather small - but extremely cubical, more so than most bopamagilvies in fact. And bright blue perfect spheres, hard as diamond, but really, really small, tiny in fact, more so than most macguffins. And then there's the large, hard cube that's a bright yellow....

But dump out the contents of the sack, and from a distance, it's obvious to the casual observer that there are two distinct populations, macguffins and bopamagilvies. Only a few exceptions, the minor differences and anomalies aren't visible from more than 40 meters away. A binary model works.

OK, that's a 4-dimensional situation: we have shape, colour, texture and size. And all those dimensions are not black-and-white, quantised to either one thing or another, but continuous. Finally, from a distance, it's obvious that there are two distinct populations, hence bimodal.

Sex is like that.

To stretch the analogy to breaking point.... two philosophers are arguing about how to tell a bopamagilvy from a macguffin. One insists that you have to take into account all 4 dimensions. Another says that size, and only size, is important. Then along comes a blind interventionist with very fixed ideas. He examines each object, feeling the shape and either uses a rotary sander or a knife, to get rid of the ambiguities. Those are the only tools he has. So he looks at an object, thinks its more round than cubical, and uses a sander on it to remove the facets. Even if it's blue. He ignores the screams.

Oh I forgot to mention - these objects are alive. And if you ask them, they'll tell you whether they're bopamagilvies or macguffins. All the blue objects say they're bopamagilvies, all the red ones say they're macguffins. The yellow one sniffs and tells you that they're neither, the purple ones sometimes say "Macguffin", other times "Bopamagilvy", mostly depending on their texture, but sometimes depending on their size.

Just before the analogy snaps... some of the very, very reddest and very, very bluest objects are deeply unhappy. They're the ones whose shapes don't match their colour. They beg and plead for the blind interventionist to "fix their problem", even if he can do nothing about their texture, and can only make them smaller, not larger.

The point I was making in my original piece -- and might make even more forcefully now that I've thought more about it --- is that it's not necessary to choose; that anatomy is not what determines our inner idendities or allows us to love and care for one another.

For you it isn't. You are cis-gendered, body and brain match. Not everyone is so fortunate. Some are so deeply miserable, they're incapable of loving and caring for themselves, even if they can manage it for others in fits and starts.Here's a specialist psychologist on the subject:

Secondly, “Dysphoria,” defined by Marriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary as “a state of feeling unwell or unhappy,” or in the American College Dictionary as “a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting” is simply too soft a word to describe the angst most clinicians see on intake with this population. At best it may be an apt descriptor for individuals who, despite strong evidence to the contrary, are making an extraordinary effort to convince themselves that they are sex/gender congruent. These individuals make life decisions such as getting married and having children not only because they may find it appealing to have a spouse and have children but with the added hope that this activity will ease or erase their obsessive cross gender thoughts. Although there may be instances where these special efforts succeed, (i.e. the incongruity is mild) the more likely outcome is a realization they have actually made matters worse. Typically, at time of presentation these individuals report that either their lives are in ruin, or they are very afraid that if their gender variant condition was to become known they would loose all that they cherish and be ostracized from family, friends and the ability to support themselves. High anxiety and deep depression with concurrent suicide ideation is common. One of the most extreme cases I have treated was that of a 50 year old genetic male, married and the father of 3 grown children with an international reputation as a scientist who reported to me that the reason he finally sought out treatment for his gender issues was because the number of times he found himself curled up in the corner of his office in the fetal position muffling his cry was increasing. That is not dysphoria, that is pure misery.

Been there, done that. Not more than once every few months though, I was still functional enough not to transition. It's when it happens every week, then every day, then every few hours that functioning in society becomes impossible. I wasn't nearly at that stage. I just hoped I'd die soon, before I got there.

It's not that one is unhappy: for that's a constant. It's when you can't actually function that it's "transition or die".

Your own situation, in which you declare yourself to be a straight woman, but are living in a mated relationship with another woman, should certainly illustrate my point.

Too bad we don't have the physical affection that is the sine qua non of most marriages. We're the wrong sex for each other.

Okay, so the problem for transsexuals is that they can't comfortably process the hormones their body is producing due to what their brains are telling them, and the only solution for that is what I've called mutilation and you call body reassignment or whatever. Even if I believed, as you do, that this was the only lifesaving procedure available, I would have enormous qualms about it, since it is not only irreversible, but does not turn people into the fully functional men or women of their dreams, only into "transsexuals". And yes, I'm of the opinion that anyone who thinks otherwise is "deluded."

Anyone who thinks it will turn them into a "fully functional man or woman of their dreams" won't be permitted to have surgery. In order to qualify, one must convince the gatekeepers that one knows of the drawbacks, the risks, that one has researched the various surgeons records and their different techniques, that one knows that it's irreversible, and results in sterility, that one may never have any sensation, that one may never walk again.... and despite all that, are willing, even desperate, to have the procedure. That one is giving full and informed consent.

Yet oddly enough, one can get an orchidectomy - the removal of the testes - almost on demand. It's the removal of the penis that is seen by the (male) doctors as not just the important thing, but the *only* thing. Even though it isn't actually removed as such. The tissues are re-shaped, nothing apart from the testes and erectile tissue is wasted.

This to me is totally bizarre. I never had much in that area, but I valued my testes highly. They were the only chance I had for children. As soon as the medics told me that due to my condition, they were "soft, shrunken" and permanently out of commission, the main pillar that prevented me from transitioning was removed. I was rather glad that the rest was now mainly internal, it never felt right, but the testes were a different matter, even if they didn't feel right either. Once they ceased functioning, no point in having them.

A few questions: I'm not at all clear how the hormonal problem translates itself into the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body. Does everybody with such a problem automatically feel that way and translate that into some sort of ideational form? It doesn't seem very likely to me.

Not everyone with a cross-sexed "gender identity" has a cross-sexed body map. I must emphasise that biology is messy, fuzzy, and there are degrees. My own case was relatively mild. How do I know? Because anyone who has it intensely has either transitioned or died before age 30.

One person we studied had untreated male gender dysphoria (S7), took no hormones and kept his transsexual feelings under wraps. He appeared to have a large INAH3 volume - in the male range - but a female INAH3 number of neurons (68) and a female BSTc somatostatin neuron number (95). Hence, this individual's hypothalamic characteristics were mid-way between male and female values

Also, it's my impression that hormone therapy is seen by its recipients as a means to achieve the bodies they want, not to serve as counterbalance to the hormones they can't handle.You say that in mild cases, or words to that effect, hormone treatments work and there's no need for surgery. First off, the idea of a mild case seems to conflict with your statement (or at least I think that's what you said) that everybody who's trasnssexual has the same brain vs. body physical makeup. And what happens when the hormones work? Do people get rid of the idea that they're in the wrong bodies, or is just that the hormones have changed their bodies suffiiently to suit them?

Oh, they still feel like the body is wrong in many areas. But not enough to be more than just an embuggerance. It varies.

Many try to keep the dosage to as mild a level as possible (and are encouraged to do so by the medics). They value their ability to have sex, they value their marriage, they value their job and their friendships. All of which would be imperilled if their bodies started changing.

Others require the body changes. Many never intend ever having sex, so the genitalia may not be important, especially if it's atrophied. But the feeling of the body, the skin smoothness, the differences in the way the body moves with the changes to the cartilage, having boobs when you wake up... that can induce positive euphoria, to not have to fight one's instincts.

Once I had a taste of this through natural change, the traditional feral equines would not have been an impediment to me.

Again, we all have to beware of universaling our own experiences. I can't speak for anyone else, I rely on their accounts to me.

My legion of detractors on the blog made it abundantly clear that they felt I had totally mischaracterized their experience, but I was left with a very unclear impression of what that experience actually is beyond the persistent feeling that you're in the wrong body, which I'd had no trouble acknowledging in the first place. No one agreed with my guess about how they got that feeling, and I'm perfectly prepared to abandon that theory if it doesn't apply. Everybody's right, I don't know enough transsexuals.

Well, although *technically* I'm not TS... close enough. Perhaps I can recommend a few who would be amenable to conversing with you about their own experience.

Maybe you can refer me to a memoir that might provide me with another developmental scenario. I note that you were among the very few commenters who offerred an alternative explanaation of how they got that way. And by the way, if I could remember the name of what I read, I'd challenge you to come up with a different interpretation thsn minr of Jan Morris's declared reasons for desiring a sex change.

I haven't read her book... sorry. I'll try to pick up a copy.

No doubt I should have known about the neuroanatomy theory, but, as you yourself point out, it wasn't too long ago that nobody else knew about it either.

*Exactly* . I can't blame you - 5 years ago, I had zero knowledge in this area. I had many misconceptions - different from yours, but just as erroneous. And even more about Gays.

I do challenge you to go back to the literature on the subject from the days of Christine Jorgensen and see if the reasons trans people gave for their decisions doesn't sound like sex-role stereotyping to you.

I decline, as no doubt you're correct. Had I transitioned back then, I would have done the same. You must remember that I'm a very conservative person, who under other circumstances could have been a good member of the BDM, or the Komsomolsk, or the Concerned Women of America. I fit the gender binary model really well, so thought others had to as well. Until I did some research. Reality didn't so much hit me, as gave me a good beating with a clue bat. Now some people are impervious to that. As a Scientist, and as a Safety-Critical Engineer, I can't be.

Does this mean that I'd write the same thing the same way now. Almost certainly not. What would I write now? I'm not at all sure I'd write anything, but if I did I don't know what it would be. I welcome your help as I think about it.

A joint article? Ron, this is what we're doing now, in this series of posts. I've already had suggestions that it be included in a "best of" collection. Your honesty is obvious, and you are held in high esteem by many. Me too, now I've come to know you. I hope that in 2049 I still have your intellectual flexibility, and integrity. Maybe a tadge more diplomacy... but if not, that's no great fault.

I'm a bit confused. You said no more of my emails online, but sent me a comment from somebody who's obviously seen my latest email.. Or were you just explaining why no more? ...I'd thought to go back over our correspondence, make notes, then try to organize my questions and thoughts in an orderly way. I have decided, however, to just select some of the most conspicuous items that have been whirling about in my head, and see where it takes me. If I don't get to everything at once, there's always later (something I finally learned with age.)

First I'd like to get the "born that way" thing out of the way for the time being (one of my attachments more or less deals with that, so if you read it, we'll have more to talk about anon.) I'm not persuaded that the documentation you referred me to proves that even some people are born gay or straight -- even if I was sure that the methodology of the studies was all kosher and the sample adequate. And I think that, born that way or not, people who define themselves as gay or bisexual have made a moral choice not to deny or repress their homosexual impulses the way most people do. Just looking around me here in Bangladesh, I don't see anybody besides Ali, who's been around me for quite a while, who thinks of themselves as gay, or even has a clear picture of what that is. Back when, we used to shout "We are everywhere" and I'm sure that's true, but the culture here doesn't allow us to know who we are or what we want, so the gays among us don't know they're here.

At last, to begin. And not where I thought I'd start but with your comment that transsexuaality is like intersex. Well, from what we've discussed, it is intersex, since one part of the anatomy (the neuroanatomy in the brain) may be typically male while another part (the body) may be typically female. You seem to think, and I'm not at all clear why, that the brain part is what makes somebody a real man or woman and to insist, as I think you've conceded, that one must decide one is, or must choose to be, one or the other. The point I was making in my original piece -- and might make even more forcefully now that I've thought more about it --- is that it's not necessary to choose; that anatomy is not what determines our inner idendities or allows us to love and care for one another. Your own situation, in which you declare yourself to be a straight woman, but are living in a mated relationship with another woman, should certainly illustrate my point.

Okay, so the problem for transsexuals is that they can't comfortably process the hormones their body is producing due to what their brains are telling them, and the only solution for that is what I've called mutilation and you call body reassignment or whatever. Even if I believed, as you do, that this was the only lifesaving procedure available, I would have enormous qualms about it, since it is not only irreversible, but does not turn people into the fully functional men or women of their dreams, only into "transsexuals". And yes, I'm of the opinion that anyone who thinks otherwise is "deluded."

A digression: No one seems to have noted that the focus of my ire was not those who've undergone sex-change surgeries, but the doctors who prescribe and perform them. Perhaps an anology can make you understand the way I feel. I think the plastic surgeons who changed Michael Jackson from an attractive black man to a caricature of a white woman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if they were conforming to their client/patient's requests.

A few questions: I'm not at all clear how the hormonal problem translates itself into the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body. Does everybody with such a problem automatically feel that way and translate that into some sort of ideational form? It doesn't seem very likely to me. Also, it's my impression that hormone therapy is seen by its recipients as a means to achieve the bodies they want, not to serve as counterbalance to the hormones they can't handle.You say that in mild cases, or words to that effect, hormone treatments work and there's no need for surgery. First off, the idea of a mild case seems to conflict with your statement (or at least I think that's what you said) that everybody who's trasnssexual has the same brain vs. body physical makeup. And what happens when the hormones work? Do people get rid of the idea that they're in the wrong bodies, or is just that the hormones have changed their bodies suffiiently to suit them?

My legion of detractors on the blog made it abundantly clear that they felt I had totally mischaracterized their experience, but I was left with a very unclear impression of what that experience actually is beyond the persistent feeling that you're in the wrong body, which I'd had no trouble acknowledging in the first place. No one agreed with my guess about how they got that feeling, and I'm perfectly prepared to abandon that theory if it doesn't apply. Everybody's right, I don't know enough transsexuals. Maybe you can refer me to a memoir that might provide me with another developmental scenario. I note that you were among the very few commenters who offerred an alternative explanaation of how they got that way. And by the way, if I could remember the name of what I read, I'd challenge you to come up with a different interpretation thsn minr of Jan Morris's declared reasons for desiring a sex change.

No doubt I should have known about the neuroanatomy theory, but, as you yourself point out, it wasn't too long ago that nobody else knew about it either. I do challenge you to go back to the literature on the subject from the days of Christine Jorgensen and see if the reasons trans people gave for their decisions doesn't sound like sex-role stereotyping to you.

Does this mean that I'd write the same thing the same way now. Almost certainly not. What would I write now? I'm not at all sure I'd write anything, but if I did I don't know what it would be. I welcome your help as I think about it.

Now that I've written this, I've decided that I wouldn't be at all averse to sharing it with those who've been following our discussion thus far. At least for this email, you can put me back on the blog, if it isn't too late.

Just one more thing. Who is this Bailey person that everyone seems to hate so much? I read the quote in the passage you sent, and it seemed quite innocuous to me (and to you too, I think). What does he say that sends everyone into a frenzy? Maybe I've gpt a kindred spirit.

Can I offer you a hug?

My reply - more later -

Hi Ron!

I'll clear each e-mail individually with you for publication, if you like. Or, if it's convenient to you, just put NFP in the subject, meaning Not For Publication.

We could do it either way, default to publish, or default to not publish. My own preference is to default to not publish, so I don't accidentally make a mistake.

I'll answer this one a bit at a time, over several e-mails, as you are giving me furiously to think.

Ronald Gold wrote:

I'm a bit confused. You said no more of my emails online, but sent me a comment from somebody who's obviously seen my latest email.. Or were you just explaining why no more?

I think it's "fair use" to quote you that minimum part of your e-mail to explain why no more of your fascinating and cogent replies would be forthcoming. Many people were disappointed, so I'm glad you've given me permission to quote this one.

Perhaps an anology can make you understand the way I feel. I think the plastic surgeons who changed Michael Jackson from an attractive black man to a caricature of a white woman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if they were conforming to their client/patient's requests.

Just one more thing. Who is this Bailey person that everyone seems to hate so much? I read the quote in the passage you sent, and it seemed quite innocuous to me (and to you too, I think). What does he say that sends everyone into a frenzy? Maybe I've gpt a kindred spirit.

From another article of mine :

Much of psychiatry doesn't even meet the medical standard of proof - it's based on philosophical theory, anecdote and what can only be described as superstition. Just because it's difficult to gather the evidence, and that the evidence by its very nature can never be conclusive, doesn't mean to say that you can look at a Tabloid article, and from that formulate a completely new disorder, diagnose it for someone recently deceased who you've never actually met, and then pretend that it's science rather than speculation. Oh yes, disregarding any physiological disorders or biological evidence that doesn't fit your lede.

Not that anyone would do that of course. Well, except for Dr J.Michael Bailey in his article on Scientificblogging, Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder?:

Am I suggesting Michael Jackson was a homosexual autohebephile? I sure am.

"Erotic Identity Disorder" is a whole new diagnosis he's just made up for the occasion. Yes, well, and younger trans women are particularly suited to prostitution too, as he stated in his "scientific" book The Man Who Would Be Queen based on talking to less that a dozen Trans prostitutes at a gay bar. (Hint: go to a gay bar and don't be surprised if you find gays rather than women)

Bailey's perceptions might have been skewed by his lack of contact with the health professionals in this field (he is not a member of the Benjamin Association) and his reliance on very limited field work with a very small sample of transgender informants in Chicago gay bars. ... In the book, Bailey explicitly states how much he respects his informants, yet information from transsexuals that contradicts his theory is dismissed as self-justification, identity politics, and lies: ". . . they are often silent about their true motivation and instead tell stories about themselves that are misleading and, in important respects, false" (p. 146).

Review by Walter O Bockting PhD. The Journal of Sex Research Volume 42, Number 3, August 2005: pp. 267—270

Monday, 21 December 2009

One person we studied had untreated male gender dysphoria (S7), took no hormones and kept his transsexual feelings under wraps. He appeared to have a large INAH3 volume - in the male range - but a female INAH3 number of neurons (68) and a female BSTc somatostatin neuron number (95). Hence, this individual's hypothalamic characteristics were mid-way between male and female values

Biology is fuzzy: there are degrees of masculinisation and feminisation in various neuro-anatomical structures. This data suggests that the degree has a correlation with intensity of transsexuality, whether the patient transitions early, late, or not at all.

I find it unacceptable that you have put our correspondence online without mantioning that to me much less asking my permission. I do not give such permission for this or any further correspondence, and if that's not okay with you, I will regretfully have to stop writing you.

UPDATE:

On 23/12/2009 10:35 PM, Ronald Gold wrote:

Was thinking that now that I'm agreeable to being online, perhaps you should also include the reply I wrote to your canine intercourse remark, etc. Why spare them a bit of vitriol?

OK, here it is....

I haven't had much sleep lately because my mind keeps whirling about with all the things I want to ask you and say to you about our correspondence. Where to begin? I kept asking myself. Perhaps mistakenly, I've decided to begin with a couple of things I'm really pissed off about, since this emotional state has colored my thinking which, like you, I like to think is rational.

First, I find it unacceptable that you have put our correspondence online without mantioning that to me much less asking my permission. I do not give such permission for this or any further correspondence, and if that's not okay with you, I will regretfully have to stop writing you. When I have reached some conclusions about what, if anything, I would change about my original post, I will say so (though I doubt if I now have a forum for my thoughts) and I might even decide it would be worthwhile to discuss how I got to that point, but while I'm getting there I prefer talking to a sympathetic ear, which I thought yours was, not into a loudspeaker!

So I have committed "canine intercourse" (were you one of those who objected to my use of the word "pecker"? --- a misguided attempt to add a note of levity, by the way) and my views have caused incalculable "real damage" you cannot bring yourself to specify. Best I can do is state succinctly my current view on that: My suggestion that the concept of transgender is a form of sex-role stereotyping (however much I might wish to modify that view in light of your info on neuroanatomy) is TOTALLY unlikely to inspire hatred and hostility toward anybody, and has NEVER been used by those who would like to kill anybody. I note that you have not included anything approaching that in your discussion of rationales for hate, and that my thoughts on the subject seem to have been the farthest thing from mind of the McDonald's manager who called a young applicant a "faggot." What the use of that word means to me is that hatred is directed at those who don't conform to the sex-role stereotypes that most people try to force themselves into. I can see that calling people mutilated and deluded whose self-image depends on thinking otherwise would be profoundly upsetting to them, but that's not at all what I was trying to do. Perhaps there was a way of saying what I had to say without upsetting anybody, and perhaps I should have tried hard to do that, which I admit I didn't. Right now, I can't think of any way I could have avoided offense. But "real damage'?

There are a great many other things I want to say and ask you about related to your most recent emails, but now I intend to wash the dishes and make the bed, so all will be ready for Ali when he returns from the latest in a million weddings we've been invited to since I got back here. He always goes because he likes the food and the chat, and I always don't because being among hundreds of people I don't know and can't talk to because of the language barrier, is not my idea of fun. I may return to this today, or start up again tomorrow.

I've discovered that I have on this computer a copy of Polarity: the Psychology of Paul Rosenfels, the as-yet-unpublished manuscript which outlines the theoretical base for virtually everything I have written. I've learned it's not as easy to comprehend as I hoped it would be, but I could email it to you if you're intrested. But I notice you've yet to comment on the two attachments I sent you recently, so perhaps not.

My comment on his request for publication:

By the way, you're an evil, evil man suggesting I include your diatribe. But then, I must be an evil, evil woman, as that tickles my funnybone - so if you're absolutely sure... it would add a certain air of completeness. Please confirm this though, I really wouldn't want to make another mistake like last time.(He did in a separate e-mail)

I feel terrible that I was so rude. I really don't want to stage a repeat performance, you know? Not just for your sake, but mine. I try to do the right thing, and when I screw up, as here, well, I don't feel very good about it.

I don't think you do vitriol very well though. Anger, yes, that you have down pat. Fury too. But you lack the spite and malice needed for proper vitriol.

Saturday, 19 December 2009

Both Nadir and Ahmed were born with a rare birth defect called male pseudohermaphrodism.

Deficiency of the hormone 17-B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (17-B-HSD) during pregnancy left their male reproductive organs deformed and buried deep within their abdomens.

At birth, doctors identified Nadir and Ahmed as girls, because they appeared to have female genitalia.

As a result, they spent the first 16 years of their lives dressing and acting like girls. It was a role that grew increasingly difficult to play, as they hit puberty and their bodies began generating testosterone, resulting in facial hair and increasingly masculine features....Dr. Jehad Abudaia, a Canadian-Palestinian pediatrician and urologist practicing in Gaza, says he has diagnosed nearly 80 cases like Nadir's and Ahmed's in the last seven years.

"It is astonishing that we have [so] many cases with this defect, which is very rare all over the world," Abudaia says. He attributes the high frequency of this birth defect to "consanguinity," or in-breeding.

"If you want to go to the root of the problem, this problem runs in families in the genes." Abudaia says. "They want to get married to cousins... they don't go to another family. This is a problem."...Abudaia's first advice to patients with the disorder is to immediately adopt male clothing and hair cuts, and then to plan for a sex-change operation.

*SIGH* Which means a significant number will become TS as the result...

This unusual ritual has been performed several times in the extended family of Nadir and Ahmed, where sex differentiation is a recurring disorder.

Nadir's 21-year-old brother Midyam and his 32-year-old cousin Ameen Abd Hamed share the same condition of male pseudohermaphrodism. As adolescents, they too underwent the gender identity transformation process the family refers to as "the transfer."

Friday, 18 December 2009

Once again I thank you for your willingness to share your vast store of information with me. You have just about persuaded me that there is such a thing as neuroanatomy and that it's the cause of transsexuality, but I think we're still far about what, if anything, should be done about it. I'll need to look over your email more thoroghly and think about it.

By all means! Exactly what I hoped for, that you'd spare your limited and valuable time to really examine the issue, and ask further questions... not take anything I say at face value, but either ask me to justify my statements, or (better) do some independent research to make sure that my subjectivity is limited. A conclusion you arrive at independently based on independently-found evidence is always more convincing than one that's spoon-fed to you.

As regards the therapy, a bit of history from my own viewpoint.

In the dim, distant past, little distinction was made between homosexuality and transsexuality. It was thought that gay men were really wannabe-women, and that transsexual women were really gay men who were taking things to the logical extreme. Various crypto-religious psychiatric theories were proposed about some form of "feminine essence" or "female soul" that all gays had to some degree, and transsexual women had to an extreme amount. Some of the very first surgeries were performed on this basis - and in 1940's Germany, in the extermination camps, not on willing volunteers.

Later on, the persistant demands by transsexual women and men, and the catastrophically high suicide rate, pursuaded some medics to try all sorts of therapies. Amongst them - lobotomy, leucotomy, "aversion therapy" involving administration of nauseating drugs and electric shocks to genitalia and eyeballs, all sorts of "gestalt" therapy, "neuro-linguistic programming", "cognitive therapy", psychoanalysis, electro-convulsive therapy with dosages far higher than would be permitted today, and often without anaesthetic, psychotropic drugs, masculinising hormones...quite literally every tool in the arsenal of psychiatry was tried. Even "spirit release therapy" and exorcism, using bell, book and candle.

Long-term follow-ups showed temporary remission of symptoms in many cases, especially those involving the more extreme forms of aversion therapy that left 2nd degree burns, but no improvement over the long-term. Not without some unfortunate side-effects, such as the patient's IQ being lowered to the level of a cabbage due to over-enthusiastic brain surgery. And patients continued to die.

In the spirit of "what the heck, nothing else works", from the early 50's, some surgeons in Europe tried the first "production-line" (as opposed to "experimental") genital reconstruction surgeries, in conjunction with feminising hormones.... and they started getting some dramatic improvements. By the 1960's, French surgeons in Casablanca, Morocco were doing several surgeries per week, at a cost in today's terms of about a quarter of a million dollars each.

It wasn't enough to be independantly wealthy, an "exotic dancer" with an employer who would pony up the cash, or to have a "Sugar Daddy" though. Only the most gracile, prettiest and most effeminate of "boys" - no-one over 25 - were accepted into one or the other of the programs that started in the 60's. See the surgeon wearing slacks rather than skirt, high heels, makeup and perfume, and you'd be rejected. As you would be if you were too tall, too thickset, too "butch" in body language, or if there was even the slightest hint that you might be attracted to anything other than gorgeous hunks of manhood.

By the 70's, surgeons all over the US were starting treatment programs, usually in association with Universities and Clinics, and prices were lowered so they were in the reach of the "comfortably well off" rather than the "filthy rich". But if you were a banker, you'd have to become a secretary - if an engineer, a beautician, or other occupation that was deemed appropriate for your sex. And of course you'd have to sever all contact with your previous life, and not see any member of your family ever again.

The great majority of transsexual women and men were of course excluded from this treatment, though some of them managed to re-shape their lives into the caricatures required by the gatekeepers, lying through their teeth to give the answers that the gatekeepers wanted. The rest died. But those that *did* qualify for treatment ended up beautiful, utterly feminine, the very model of the ideal 1950's womanhood the very conservative medical profession required, and success rates climbed.

Genital Reconstruction was thus a purely pragmatic approach, with no theoretical justification other than that it stopped patients killing themselves. It was still viewed as mutilation of the deluded, but better that than a dead patient, as nothing else worked.

Of course the surgery did nothing to help heal any sequelae from years of misery. It solved the One Big Problem, but to expect it to also deal with the problems of alcohol or substance abuse, the mental damage from having this condition, was as ridiculous as expecting concentration-camp survivors and torture victims to be entirely free of psychiatric problems from the moment of their release. Some of the more ultra-conservative psychiatrists didn't see it that way though: if this wasn't a magic bullet, a complete cure-all, it was unacceptable on ideological grounds.

Here's Dr McHugh, writing in the Arch-Conservative Catholic religious journal "First Things" as late as 2004, on events of the late 70's:

"We saw the results as demonstrating that just as these men enjoyed cross-dressing as women before the operation so they enjoyed cross-living after it. But they were no better in their psychological integration or any easier to live with. With these facts in hand I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia."

Many psychiatrists are still trying, 60 years after the first serious attempts. They know that there *must* be a better way, they just haven't found it yet, and the patients unco-operatively keep dying before they do! Their reference books say that it's a mental illness, after all.

By the middle 1980's, the University programs were pretty much a thing of the past. The research had been done, the experiments conducted, and the surgery was farmed out to being performed by plastic and urological surgeons, many of whom had more enthusiasm than skill. Quite a few did a half-dozen operations, had an unbroken string of "poor results", and gave up. This is a specialised area, and although there are still many surgeons around who will say "I'll give it a go... I saw it done once...", now most of the surgery is being performed by a handful of surgeons with dozens, or even hundreds, of successful surgeries under their belt.

By the late 1980's, a few psychiatrists were even giving the go-ahead to women in their 30's, and even 40's. Even ones who would never look pretty. Even ones who would never "pass" as anything other than "transsexuals". Even a few who admitted that in the past they weren't exclusively attracted to men. Having ever been married was still an absolute bar though.

It wasn't until 1996 - in Australia anyway - that this absolute prohibition was lifted, and the existence of lesbians was acknowledged. These days, they'll even treat people like me - thickset, as graceful as a hippopotamus, but not as good-looking. OK, I have a classical female skull structure, and a female pattern pelvis, I'm 5' 6" rather than 6', all due to my intersex condition and never having had a normal male puberty, but I have a 45" ribcage, arms like Rosie the Riveter... meh.

It could be worse. I look much like most other women my age, and rather younger-looking than many. I look plain - but at least I no longer look male. But I digress.

The point is, that even if you regard this as "mutilation" rather than "reconstruction", and say "they should try alternative treatments", the problem is that there *is* no "alternative treatment" to try. Not that works. Religiously and Ideologically motivated mental health professionals are still attempting to turn lead into gold, leaving an unbroken line of corpses and psychic cripples to mark their 0.000000000 batting average, but they still keep trying. But while there's literally hundreds of studies showing the effectiveness of the "triadic therapy" involving hormones and surgery, and even some studies showing the effectiveness of hormones alone on less severe cases, there's none where someone who meets all (not just some) of the diagnostic criteria that have ever shown improvement in long-term follow-up.

The widely-held belief that "they don't need surgery, they need psychiatric help instead" is not borne out by any actual evidence. Not a skerric, jot or tittle.

It was this complete lack of success that led to the speculation in the late 60's about a biological cause, rather than a psychiatric one.

As the great pioneer in the field, Harry Benjamin, wrote as far back as 1966:

"The possible origin of transsexualism is not discussed in the medical literature very often or in very much detail. Most frequently, there is the simple statement that the cause is unknown....The two principal theories are concerned either with possible organic, that is, biological (inborn) causes not necessarily inherited, or - much more often - with purely psychological ones.Biologically minded authors are likely to consider TVism and TSism as "intersexual" phenomena but those are almost exclusively European scientists....In this country, psychology and psychoanalysis still dominate the field of sexual deviations. Many psychologists, particularly analysts, have little biological background and training. Some seem actually contemptuous of biological facts and persistently overstate psychological data, so much so that a distorted, one-sided picture of the problem under consideration results.Psychiatrists with biological orientation strongly disagree and even decry the exclusive psychoanalytic interpretations. But their voice is heard too rarely."

Those words are still true to a great extent today. Though less so, as the evidence is now pretty overwhelming.

I am not at all insensitive to the discrimination and hostility faced by trans people, and have tried to say from the start that, whatever one's views on the whole question of transsexuality, hatred and hostility are indefiensible. I don't think you'd be wasting your time corresponding with me, if you didn't understand that.

I'm not just writing this for you, Ron. I'm writing it for all those who hold similar views to you, yes, even the ones who engage in hostility and hatred towards transsexual people. Not even to further the "GLBT Agenda" or to argue for Human Rights, but simply to set the record straight. There are many who switched from hating because "those people" are morally corrupt (the MassResistance view) to hating because they are Mentally Ill (the FocusOnTheFamily view), to hating because these people are "freaks of nature".

"Adol T. Owen-Williams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, ... shouted "Heil Hitler!" immediately after the vote to allow Intersexed women and men to be allowed to drink from public drinking fountains. "Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature."

My adducing the evidence won't stop the hatred. There are many to whom the hatred is the thing, the exact justification is unimportant to them, though there are many more who can be reached, so my efforts will diminish the hatred. But that's not why I'm doing it.

I'm doing it so that people can come to informed decisions, and not be misled by common superstitions, for want of a better term. I'm doing it because I'm a Geek Girl, a Scientist. And not least, I'm doing it because I'm a human being who is sick and tired of the utter bilge that people who should know better continually spout from positions of invincible ignorance. I may leave them no wiser, but at least they'll be better informed.

And I do wish you'd had a few unkind words to say on the blog to those who viewed me as their sworn enemy and were after my head.

Ron... I'm sorry, but I'm unable to do that. Because if I did, out of fairness, I'd have to tell you some very unpleasant home-truths about just how badly you committed canine intercourse on this one as well. I'd rather you come to that conclusion yourself. I'm a monster of arrogance and ego, but there's been far too much arrogant commanding of others as to what they should think by those in a position of privilege, be it sociological or because "(scientific) knowledge is power". I'm on my home turf here, I'm a genuine honest-to-goodness Rocket Scientist for goodness sake! This gives me a privilege and a power you don't have, "rep" and "street cred", much of which is wholly undeserved.

You're a good man. You have the "runs on the board", having done more for most people than I can ever hope to do. From your e-mails to me, I've come not just to respect you in the abstract, but to like you too. In order to criticise and restrain those whose anger has let it get the better of them, I'd also have to arrogantly tell you in no uncertain terms that their anger is justified, and some, first, and tell you just how much real damage your ill-informed views have done. I'm really averse to doing that. As I said, I'd prefer you come to such a conclusion yourself, if you think it warranted.

I do tend to share the view, however, of those who wonder whether trans people who consider themselves straight ought to embrace or be embraced as members of the gay political community, and I'm appallled by the whole notion that you're entitled to marry a man when you can say you no longer are one.

I never was one though. And not for lack of trying. But it's something you are or you aren't.

As for the political stuff... I identify as a straight woman. I feel as if I've been dragooned into the "GLB(t)" political movement. I don't regard myself as "transgendered" in any way, and yes, I uphold the "gender binary norm". I fit the binary gender model really, really well, not a trace of Butch about me. The binary gender role model, not so well, I'm in Engineering and Science, hardly traditionally "female" occupations. I'm not girlie at all. Makeup is nice sometimes, on special occasions, and is certainly no sillier than guys wearing ties, and heels make my legs look heaps better, though they're instruments of torture and completely impractical. The binary sex model on the other hand.... I'm about as far away from fitting it as it's possible to be. I'm not even in the same Galaxy, let alone the same neighbourhood of it.

So as regards Gender, I'm not a Revolutionary, I'm a Counter-Revolutionary. As regards Gender Role, I'm a confirmed Feminist, even a bit militant about it. As regards biological sex, I'm not just Revolutionary, I'm Chaos and Anarchy personified, AntiMatter whose mere existence blows the whole concept apart.

But that's me. Others differ. I'm unusual, and I realise that, and don't expect others to be the same.

I don't belong in any movement that is GLB and GLB alone. I can be an Ally, but I will always be supporting from the outside, not the inside. When I looked male, I was asexual to lesbian, hence apparently straight, and somewhat homophobic too (though I tried to overcome that disease). When my appearance changed, I had a period of strict asexuality, then started finding guys kinda cute. This came as a surprise to no-one except me. But I digress once more.

"...Zoe, I feel that you've done this with Mr. Gold, and I thank you very much for that. Perhaps we should now be lobbying "Bilerico" to allow him to publish a more informed piece in place of the article that they allowed to be published initially, then removed once they realised how unpopular that viewpoint really was.

Which leads me to this. There has been debate in Sydney in recent times about whether the T belongs as all in the GLBT, and while it's quite apparent to most of us that literally it doesn't belong, but as we are such a minority group we occasionally need to ride on the back of, share resources and support each other in our sometimes similar other times unique endeavours.

But this article was published by a group sprouting itself as an inclusive GLBT organization and unfortunately this is quite common. It makes me wonder about the whole thing again, and even just how much the B even belongs in that acronym as they are also pretty much a misunderstood group among the Gay and lesbian community...."

Here was my reply:

"In Australia, it seems to me that TS people - by which I mean those who require hormonal and often surgical intervention - have more in common with Intersexed people than any group based on sexual orientation.

But trying to split the gender nonconformant into neat piles, transgendered here, lesbian there, transsexual over here, and the various categories of intersexed people in their own little cubicles, is impractical, even though from a philosophical and taxonomical view that would be correct. In truth they have little in common. But that little means they all get treated much the same.

I may not see myself as gay or lesbian - but others think differently, though they disagree on whether I'm gay, lesbian, or both simultaneously - consistency and logic is often not their strong suite. I may not see myself as transgendered, but I don't get a say in it.

Chassidic, Orthodox, or Reformed Jews, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi or Sepphadic, practicing or not, they all went into the ovens together, no matter how different they were from each other.

That provides a certain commonality of interest, no matter how much we may loath or just plain not comprehend each other.

I was dragooned into the GLBITQ-whatever camp (pardon the pun). But it was in some ways the best thing that could have happened to a priggish person like me.

Whether as an "ally" outsider of a strictly GLB group, or an "insider" of some grand GLBITTQXYZ conglomerate, I'd be doing the same thing. Trying to do what's right. Having experienced persecution myself, I can't ignore it just because it's not happening to me personally."

That gives my thoughts on the subject, anyway.

And it's my view that your categorical statement that some poeple are born gay and some are born straiight is pure undocumented drivel--calling into question the biological focus of your views on human psycholoogy in the areas in which you are attempting to familiarize me,.

The old "Clock that strikes 13" bit. Drivel it may be, but hardly undocumented.

Have a look at this picture:

It's a series of MRI images showing the differences between the brains of those exclusively attracted to women, and those exclusively attracted to men. Anatomical differences.And here's a quote from a PopSci article:

Striking similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women have been discovered by neuroscientists, offering fresh evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into our neural circuitry.

Scans reveal homosexual men and heterosexual women have symmetrical brains, with the right and left hemispheres almost exactly the same size. Conversely, lesbians and straight men have asymmetrical brains, with the right hemisphere significantly larger than the left.

Scientists at the prestigious Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden also found certain brain circuits linked to emotional responses were the same in gay men and straight women.

The findings, published tomorrow in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest the biological factors that influence sexual orientation - such as exposure to testosterone in the womb - may also shape the brain's anatomy.

The study, led by the neurobiologist Ivanka Savic, builds on previous research that has identified differences in spatial and verbal abilities related to sex and sexual orientation. Tests have found gay men and straight women fare better at certain language tasks, while heterosexual men and lesbians tend to have better spatial awareness.

Savic and her colleague Per Linström took MRI brain scans of 90 volunteers who were divided into four groups of similar ages according to whether they were male, female, heterosexual or homosexual. The scans showed the right side of the brain in heterosexual men was typically 2% larger than the left. Lesbians showed a similar asymmetry, with the right hand side of the brain 1% larger than the left.

Scans on homosexual men and heterosexual women revealed both sides of the brain were the same size.

Ok, but that just proves that the brains are different, not that they were born different.

For some of the evidence of that see"Sex Differences in Brain and Behavior: Hormones Versus Genes" by S.Bockland and E.Vilain, in Advances in Genetics Volume 59, 2007, Pages 245-266

I'm writing this at home, so can't get through the pay-per-view firewall as I can at Uni - I'll send you a follow-up quote. There's rather more than just one article though, and again we can reliably induce strict homosexuality in experimental animals by appropriate hormonal and genetic manipulation. That's not to say that all gays and lesbians are born that way - just that evidence is pretty clear that quite a few must be. A third? Half? Two thirds? That we don't know, and the evidence from other areas does more than hint that while males tend to be strongly sexually oriented to either gay or straight, women differ. I won't go so far as the unspeakable J.Michael Bailey does in "Gay, Straight or Lying" though. (see the PopSci article in the NYT)

I wasn't complaining about real life intruding on my correspondence. I share your views on that. Only saying that having 3 noisy demanding tots around was a shock to my tired old nervous system. My friend was asking where you live, so I'm glad to learn it's Australia. We've been trying to go there for quite a while, but it's been impossible for him to get a visa. Maybe we'll try again, and if successful, will loook you up, if you'd have us. What city are you in?

Canberra - and of course you'd be welcome.

One noisy demanding 8 year old boy is quite enough for me to deal with, despite my sprightly age of 51. Of course, I have him full-time, as he's my son (and boy, the odds against his existence were incalculable, as we found out 4 years after his birth when it was found out I was biologically more F than M). His Intersex condition is relatively mild too, though he did require genital reconstruction even before I did.

Did I mention I'm married? To another woman, even though same-sex marriages are illegal here. It's because I was legally male at the time. We're both straight, but everyone thinks we're one of the 2% of couples here in Canberra who are lesbian. We don't try to disabuse them of the notion, we still love each other for one thing. For another.... trying to explain would be far, far, far too difficult. The phrase "it's complicated" was made for us.

About Me

Actually, I am a Rocket Scientist.
Also hormonally odd (my blood has 46xy chromosomes anyway) and for most of my life, I looked male, and lived as one, trying to be the best Man a Gal could be. Anyway, in May 2005 that started changing naturally for reasons still unclear, and I'm now Zoe, not Alan : happier and more relaxed not to have to pretend any more.
UPDATE - reason now identified as the 3BHSD form of CAH.

Reviews

This blog, written by a rocket scientist, is a fascinating collection of information, both personal and scientific, regarding intersex, transsexualism and related psychosocial and psychosexual issues....It is erudite and heartfelt. Just read the posts about the passport issue. You won't know whether to laugh, weep or crawl into a ball and rock gently in a corner - an amazing person.- David---The reason I so appreciate bright, perceptive people - as opposed to ideologues whose intelligence does little to illuminate - is that they manage to both instruct and learn with a certain grace. Among such rarities in the transblogosphere is Zoe, whose direct speech and clear humanity always make her worth reading, even if one doesn’t always agree with her every conclusion.- Val---The following is a request for permission to archive your A.E.Brain blog site which we have wanted to do for several years...The Library has traditionally collected items in print, but it is also committed to preserving electronic publications of lasting cultural value....Since (1996) we have been identifying online publications and archiving those that we consider have national significance....We would like to include A.E.Brain blog site in the PANDORA Archive...-Australian National Library